Family wants to cut deaths from police pursuits

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 10:34:20 -0800 (PST)
gpsman > wrote:

> Family wants to cut deaths from police pursuits
>
> By Kimball Perry - enquirer.com
>
> Johnny Kallmeyer should be celebrating the holidays.
>
> Instead, his family will be visiting his grave.
>
> Kallmeyer was killed in 2007 when the motorcycle he was driving was
> struck by a criminal driving a speeding car chased by police.
>
> More than two years after that death, with Kallmeyer's killer in
> prison for 25 years, his family has settled a civil suit it filed
> against the pursuing police and is active in a national group that
> advocates for police pursuits that don't kill.
>
> "There has to be a safer way than putting people in jeopardy," said
> Margaret Geier, one of Kallmeyer's 13 siblings.
>
> Kallmeyer, 54, was returning Sept. 2, 2007, from a niece's birthday
> party to his Middletown home. He was driving his motorcycle north on
> Hamilton Avenue that becomes Pleasant Avenue in Butler County.
>
> At the same time, police were at a DUI checkpoint on Pleasant Avenue
> in Fairfield. When police saw John Haugabook driving a 1996 Cadillac
> Deville toward the checkpoint and then do a U-turn, a Butler County
> sheriff's deputy raced after him. Speeds exceeded 100 mph.

Ok, that is totally excessive. The checkpoint itself is
unconstitutional. And the police have no business in knowing where you
are, or where you are going. So there should have been no pursuit
based on a U-turn. Was someone trying to avoid a DUI checkpoint?
Possibly. But I've done U-turns for backed up traffic. And U-turns
because I was lost. And U-turns because I suddenly decided I wanted to
go a different direction. Having police pursue someone making a U-turn
is just plain wrong. -Dave

Family wants to cut deaths from police pursuits

By Kimball Perry - enquirer.com

Johnny Kallmeyer should be celebrating the holidays.

Instead, his family will be visiting his grave.

Kallmeyer was killed in 2007 when the motorcycle he was driving was
struck by a criminal driving a speeding car chased by police.

More than two years after that death, with Kallmeyer's killer in
prison for 25 years, his family has settled a civil suit it filed
against the pursuing police and is active in a national group that
advocates for police pursuits that don't kill.

"There has to be a safer way than putting people in jeopardy," said
Margaret Geier, one of Kallmeyer's 13 siblings.

Kallmeyer, 54, was returning Sept. 2, 2007, from a niece's birthday
party to his Middletown home. He was driving his motorcycle north on
Hamilton Avenue that becomes Pleasant Avenue in Butler County.

At the same time, police were at a DUI checkpoint on Pleasant Avenue
in Fairfield. When police saw John Haugabook driving a 1996 Cadillac
Deville toward the checkpoint and then do a U-turn, a Butler County
sheriff's deputy raced after him. Speeds exceeded 100 mph.

Haugabook's car crashed into another car that then hit the motorcycle
Kallmeyer was driving north at the John Gray Road intersection that is
the border between Hamilton and Butler counties.

Kallmeyer's estate sued the Butler County Sheriff's Office, alleging
its officer disregarded citizen safety in the pursuit.

"They get their adrenaline pumping and they lose sight of what they're
supposed to be doing," Geier said.

That suit ended earlier this month when Butler County agreed to pay
Kallmeyer's estate $150,000.

No disciplinary action was taken against the officer involved in the
pursuit, according to Maj. Anthony Dwyer of the Butler County
Sheriff's department.

"I'm not picking on police. I'm not anti-police. I just want people to
be aware with all these police pursuits," she added.

She and her family also turned to VIPS, Voices Insisting on Pursuit
Safety. It's a nonprofit agency of about 700 people led by founder
Candy Priano, whose 15-year-old daughter who was killed Jan. 22, 2002,
on her way to a high school basketball game when the van she was
riding in was struck by a car being chased by police.

Now, she and her Chico, Calif.-based agency help develop or stress
safer police pursuit policies.

"We exist to save lives and assist the innocent victims' families,"
Priano said. "These chases are not accidents. Some drivers choose to
flee and police choose to chase them."

Geier found a sounding board in Priano and a cause for her brother.

"I cannot just sit and let it keep going on. I would like to make a
difference so this doesn't happen to somebody else's family," Geier
said. "This happens so much. It's turning into an epidemic."

There are no official national statistics kept on the number of
innocent people killed annually in police pursuits. The National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration uses a voluntary tracking system
that relies on individual police agencies to report police chase
deaths.

But VIPS amassed data that shows 4,500 innocent bystanders have been
killed in the U.S. in police pursuits since 1982 - about three per
week. The same data shows a police officer is killed in a pursuit
every 11 weeks.

"They're hurting their own people even," Geier said. "It's totally out
of hand."

Sgt. Glen Smith disagrees.

"First and foremost ... is safety. Nobody wants to see anyone hurt,"
said Smith of the Hamilton County Park Rangers and president of the
board of directors of the Hamilton County Police Association. "If a
person didn't run, there wouldn't be a pursuit. Officers don't look
forward to pursuits."

But Priano noted her daughter was killed when police where chasing
what they called a stolen car, even though they knew it was reported
stolen by a woman who knew her teen daughter took it without
permission. Another person was killed, Priano noted, when police gave
chase following a stolen vacuum cleaner report.

"We're trying to limit the number of chases," she said. "A (vacuum
cleaner) is replaceable. A human life is not."

Kallmeyer's death left a legacy.

Because of his death, VIPS created a checkpoint procedure - authored
by a retired police chief - it wants police to use. It calls for
police to use stop sticks on cars avoiding checkpoints, stressing that
if the fleeing driver avoids those sticks, there is to be no chase.
Instead, it wants police to use their video cameras to record the
license plate number and find the driver later.

"We just need to look at it a little better," Geier said, "and their
pursuit policies need to be fine-tuned because innocent people are
getting killed."

Additional Facts On the Web
www.pursuitsafety.org is a national nonprofit agency stressing safe
police pursuits. It used Johnny Kallmeyer's 2007 Hamilton County death
to develop a procedure it wants police to use at DUI checkpoints to
avoid pursuits that can injure or kill. Kallmeyer is featured in one
of the organization's public service announcements at
http://pursuitsafety.org/mediakit/statistics.html.

Recent local cases
Lockland police Officer Brandon Gehring was on Interstate 75 in April
throwing out "stop sticks" to try to stop a car speeding away from
police when a vehicle driven by a West Chest officer struck Gehring.
He nearly died and was off for almost six months before returning to
work in October.

In 2007, Cincinnati police Sgt. Bryce Bezdek was putting "stop sticks"
on I-75 during a November 2007 chase when he was struck, suffering a
broken neck and brain injuries. He recovered enough to walk but no
longer is a police officer.
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/2...olice+pursuits

http://tinyurl.com/y8sqxxb
-----

- gpsman

On 2009-12-26, Dave C. > wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 10:34:20 -0800 (PST)
> gpsman > wrote:
>
>> Family wants to cut deaths from police pursuits
>>
>> By Kimball Perry - enquirer.com
>>
>> Johnny Kallmeyer should be celebrating the holidays.
>>
>> Instead, his family will be visiting his grave.
>>
>> Kallmeyer was killed in 2007 when the motorcycle he was driving was
>> struck by a criminal driving a speeding car chased by police.
>>
>> More than two years after that death, with Kallmeyer's killer in
>> prison for 25 years, his family has settled a civil suit it filed
>> against the pursuing police and is active in a national group that
>> advocates for police pursuits that don't kill.
>>
>> "There has to be a safer way than putting people in jeopardy," said
>> Margaret Geier, one of Kallmeyer's 13 siblings.
>>
>> Kallmeyer, 54, was returning Sept. 2, 2007, from a niece's birthday
>> party to his Middletown home. He was driving his motorcycle north on
>> Hamilton Avenue that becomes Pleasant Avenue in Butler County.
>>
>> At the same time, police were at a DUI checkpoint on Pleasant Avenue
>> in Fairfield. When police saw John Haugabook driving a 1996 Cadillac
>> Deville toward the checkpoint and then do a U-turn, a Butler County
>> sheriff's deputy raced after him. Speeds exceeded 100 mph.
>
> Ok, that is totally excessive. The checkpoint itself is
> unconstitutional. And the police have no business in knowing where you
> are, or where you are going. So there should have been no pursuit
> based on a U-turn. Was someone trying to avoid a DUI checkpoint?
> Possibly. But I've done U-turns for backed up traffic. And U-turns
> because I was lost. And U-turns because I suddenly decided I wanted to
> go a different direction. Having police pursue someone making a U-turn
> is just plain wrong. -Dave

Let's forget why he made a U-turn. Why did the cops think he made the
U-turn? His offense wasn't 'drunk driving' when they started to chase
him, it was contempt of cop. The cops believed he didn't want to talk to
them and that was enough for a dangerous chase the police knew could
result in someone's death.

Dave C. wrote:
> Ok, that is totally excessive. The checkpoint itself is
> unconstitutional. And the police have no business in knowing where you
> are, or where you are going.

Completely agree. And even if the U-turn was to avoid the checkpoint, so
what? It's well established the police have no right to treat someone as
a suspect because he exercises his right not to incriminate himself;
otherwise that right would effectively not exist.

America is supposed to be run for the convenience of innocent civilians.
Not of cops.

"John David Galt" > wrote in message
...
> Dave C. wrote:
>> Ok, that is totally excessive. The checkpoint itself is
>> unconstitutional. And the police have no business in knowing where you
>> are, or where you are going.
>
> Completely agree. And even if the U-turn was to avoid the checkpoint, so
> what? It's well established the police have no right to treat someone as
> a suspect because he exercises his right not to incriminate himself;
> otherwise that right would effectively not exist.
>
It's also been well established that making a U-turn to avoid the checkpoin
tis probable cause of trying to avoid law enforcement. A high speed chase is
also the result of the person driving the fleeing vehicle reaching that high
of a speed. Note that there would be no chase if the person pulled over to
the side of the road instead of fleeing from the officer(s).

Ever been through a checkpoint? I've been stopped at one, it's really quite
simple:

Question 1: Have you had any alcoholic beverages to drink tonight?
Reply: "No."
Question 2: Is there any alcohol in the car? (The officer may shine a
flashlight through the vehicle to check for alcoholic beverages.)
Reply: "No."

Then I got waved on with a simple, "Have a good evening, drive safely".
Since I wasn't driving under the influence, there were no problems except
for a smallish traffic backup behind me, and me having to stop for a moment
to answer two simple questions.

Newer checkpoints also now have signs indicating something like "Have
driver's license available for inspection". I've had my license in hand
approaching the officer at the checkpoint, and I've been waved on through
one two different occasions I've encountered such a checkpoint.

Only those driving under the influence, or those with out of state or no
license at all, have something to worry about when approaching a checkpoint.

> America is supposed to be run for the convenience of innocent civilians.
> Not of cops.

The statistics that show drinking and driving goes up during the holidays
more than justifies the checkpoints. If the checkpoints got no arrests and
no impounds, they would cease to exist on their own.

On 2009-12-27, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. > wrote:
> "John David Galt" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dave C. wrote:
>>> Ok, that is totally excessive. The checkpoint itself is
>>> unconstitutional. And the police have no business in knowing where you
>>> are, or where you are going.
>>
>> Completely agree. And even if the U-turn was to avoid the checkpoint, so
>> what? It's well established the police have no right to treat someone as
>> a suspect because he exercises his right not to incriminate himself;
>> otherwise that right would effectively not exist.
>>
> It's also been well established that making a U-turn to avoid the checkpoin
> tis probable cause of trying to avoid law enforcement.

Government courts agree with government cops. Film at 11.

> A high speed chase is
> also the result of the person driving the fleeing vehicle reaching that high
> of a speed. Note that there would be no chase if the person pulled over to
> the side of the road instead of fleeing from the officer(s).

There would be no chase if our rulers had not established checkpoints
as if this were the soviet union.

> Ever been through a checkpoint? I've been stopped at one, it's really quite
> simple:

Yeah, they asked for and examined my papers and found them in order and
I was allowed on my way. It was very much like those movie depictions of
Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.

> Question 1: Have you had any alcoholic beverages to drink tonight?
> Reply: "No."

Real answer: none of your buisness.

> Question 2: Is there any alcohol in the car? (The officer may shine a
> flashlight through the vehicle to check for alcoholic beverages.)
> Reply: "No."

Real answer: none of your business.

> Then I got waved on with a simple, "Have a good evening, drive safely".
> Since I wasn't driving under the influence, there were no problems except
> for a smallish traffic backup behind me, and me having to stop for a moment
> to answer two simple questions.

What else are you going to accept ? How about a viewscreen in your home?
A chip in your hand? Where do you draw the line? Or do you even draw
one, just slowly accepting incremental change?

> Newer checkpoints also now have signs indicating something like "Have
> driver's license available for inspection". I've had my license in hand
> approaching the officer at the checkpoint, and I've been waved on through
> one two different occasions I've encountered such a checkpoint.

The ones I encounter are set up like a construction zone or people
working on a busted water main or something. The lights are set up such
that you don't know it's a check point until it's too late... unless
you've seen it before.

> Only those driving under the influence, or those with out of state or no
> license at all, have something to worry about when approaching a checkpoint.

Yes, that's how police state actions are typically rationalized. The
reality is that every encounter we have with cops is dangerous. A cop
misinterpeting the slightest thing can result in one's death. Besides
that, you never know if there is warrant for somebody else you share a
name with or that something got mis-spelled or a whole host of clerical
errors that could result in a very bad time. Then again, if you have a
nice car some cop might just take a liking to it and use the law to take
it. After all, he'll have all the power in the situation.

I'm only scratching the surface here. There's lots of good reason to
avoid checkpoints and everyone has something to fear from them.

>> America is supposed to be run for the convenience of innocent civilians.
>> Not of cops.

> The statistics that show drinking and driving goes up during the holidays
> more than justifies the checkpoints. If the checkpoints got no arrests and
> no impounds, they would cease to exist on their own.

And domestic violence justifies a camera in very home so the government
employees can watch us to keep us safe.

Statistics also show that those checkpoints don't do much of anything
with regard to drinking and driving.

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:50:04 -0800, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
> wrote:

>The statistics that show drinking and driving goes up during the holidays
>more than justifies the checkpoints. If the checkpoints got no arrests and
>no impounds, they would cease to exist on their own.

All things being equal, I'd rather take the risk of encountering a
drunk driver and rely on my skills as a driver to get out of the
situation safely than to have to give up more of my rights to the
fascist police state that america (sic) is becoming in the name of,
"safety."

--
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to
purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve
neither Liberty nor Safety."
--Benjamin Franklin

On 2009-12-28, necromancer rg> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:50:04 -0800, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
> wrote:
>
>>The statistics that show drinking and driving goes up during the holidays
>>more than justifies the checkpoints. If the checkpoints got no arrests and
>>no impounds, they would cease to exist on their own.
>
> All things being equal, I'd rather take the risk of encountering a
> drunk driver and rely on my skills as a driver to get out of the
> situation safely than to have to give up more of my rights to the
> fascist police state that america (sic) is becoming in the name of,
> "safety."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...ves/40677.html

"Freedom Reduction as a Form of Grieving"

"Brent" > wrote in message
...
> On 2009-12-27, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. > wrote:
>> "John David Galt" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Dave C. wrote:
>>>> Ok, that is totally excessive. The checkpoint itself is
>>>> unconstitutional. And the police have no business in knowing where you
>>>> are, or where you are going.
>>>
>>> Completely agree. And even if the U-turn was to avoid the checkpoint,
>>> so
>>> what? It's well established the police have no right to treat someone
>>> as
>>> a suspect because he exercises his right not to incriminate himself;
>>> otherwise that right would effectively not exist.
>>>
>> It's also been well established that making a U-turn to avoid the
>> checkpoin
>> tis probable cause of trying to avoid law enforcement.
>
> Government courts agree with government cops. Film at 11.
>
And yet the government courts have actually found some aspects of law
enforcement as unconstitutional. Checkpoints just don't happen to be one of
those.

>> A high speed chase is
>> also the result of the person driving the fleeing vehicle reaching that
>> high
>> of a speed. Note that there would be no chase if the person pulled over
>> to
>> the side of the road instead of fleeing from the officer(s).
>
> There would be no chase if our rulers had not established checkpoints
> as if this were the soviet union.
>
Let's see, they ask a couple of questions and maybe might verify
license/registration/proof of insurance. I'm not bothered by the questions,
and license/registration/proof of insurance is a requirement to be on the
road in many locations, including my state--so again, no problem.

>> Ever been through a checkpoint? I've been stopped at one, it's really
>> quite
>> simple:
>
> Yeah, they asked for and examined my papers and found them in order and
> I was allowed on my way. It was very much like those movie depictions of
> Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.
>
They didn't ask for your citizenship, nor for a permit to pass from city to
city, so you can't make Nazi or Soviet comparisons in that case.

>> Question 1: Have you had any alcoholic beverages to drink tonight?
>> Reply: "No."
>
> Real answer: none of your buisness.
>
I hope the officer asks you to turn off the vehicle and step out of the car,
if you would really reply that way to the officer.

>> Question 2: Is there any alcohol in the car? (The officer may shine a
>> flashlight through the vehicle to check for alcoholic beverages.)
>> Reply: "No."
>
> Real answer: none of your business.
>
I hope the officer wanrs you about possible arrest for disorderly conduct,
if you would continue to disrespect the officer.

>> Then I got waved on with a simple, "Have a good evening, drive safely".
>> Since I wasn't driving under the influence, there were no problems except
>> for a smallish traffic backup behind me, and me having to stop for a
>> moment
>> to answer two simple questions.
>
> What else are you going to accept ? How about a viewscreen in your home?
> A chip in your hand? Where do you draw the line? Or do you even draw
> one, just slowly accepting incremental change?
>
Yeah, I know my rights and I know what lines to draw if needede.

Shining a flashlight into the vehicle isn't a search, but if I was asked to
pull over and open all of the vehicle for search, I would draw the line and
ask for the probable cause and the warrant authorizing search. I also draw
the line at going into my residence. Again, if officers asked to enter and
search, I'd ask for the probable cause and the warrant.

But, I don't consider license/registration/proof of insurance checkpoints as
violating my rights, nor do I consider DUI checkpoints as violating my
rights. At worst, they cause traffic backups, but one who is not in
violation is waved through soon enough.

>> Newer checkpoints also now have signs indicating something like "Have
>> driver's license available for inspection". I've had my license in hand
>> approaching the officer at the checkpoint, and I've been waved on through
>> one two different occasions I've encountered such a checkpoint.
>
> The ones I encounter are set up like a construction zone or people
> working on a busted water main or something. The lights are set up such
> that you don't know it's a check point until it's too late... unless
> you've seen it before.
>
The ones I see have cones closing off lanes if they want to narrow the
checkpoint area to one or two lanes. The officers standing nearby will be
stopping or waving vehicles through. If the checkpoint is at an
intersection, the lights are usually set to blinking red.

>> Only those driving under the influence, or those with out of state or no
>> license at all, have something to worry about when approaching a
>> checkpoint.
>
> Yes, that's how police state actions are typically rationalized. The
> reality is that every encounter we have with cops is dangerous. A cop
> misinterpeting the slightest thing can result in one's death. Besides
> that, you never know if there is warrant for somebody else you share a
> name with or that something got mis-spelled or a whole host of clerical
> errors that could result in a very bad time. Then again, if you have a
> nice car some cop might just take a liking to it and use the law to take
> it. After all, he'll have all the power in the situation.
>
> I'm only scratching the surface here. There's lots of good reason to
> avoid checkpoints and everyone has something to fear from them.
>
Then go ahead and avoid the checkpoint, but be prepared to pull over and
have some explaining to do to the officer that pulls you over. Frankly, I'd
rather avoid such a situation and just proceed to the checkpoint, being
stopped or waved through as they decide to stop or wave through vehicles.
I've never been sent to the secondary inspection point in the three
different checkpoints I've passed through.

>>> America is supposed to be run for the convenience of innocent civilians.
>>> Not of cops.
>
>> The statistics that show drinking and driving goes up during the holidays
>> more than justifies the checkpoints. If the checkpoints got no arrests
>> and
>> no impounds, they would cease to exist on their own.
>
> And domestic violence justifies a camera in very home so the government
> employees can watch us to keep us safe.
>
Off topic. The cops are doing enforcement, not surveillance. Public streets,
driving is a privilege and not a right. They are entitled to enforce those
streets.

> Statistics also show that those checkpoints don't do much of anything
> with regard to drinking and driving.
>
>
And yet they have reportable statistics for arrests and impounds every time
there is a checkpoint--the results are never zero.

On 2009-12-28, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. > wrote:
> "Brent" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2009-12-27, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. > wrote:
>>> "John David Galt" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Dave C. wrote:
>>>>> Ok, that is totally excessive. The checkpoint itself is
>>>>> unconstitutional. And the police have no business in knowing where you
>>>>> are, or where you are going.
>>>>
>>>> Completely agree. And even if the U-turn was to avoid the checkpoint,
>>>> so
>>>> what? It's well established the police have no right to treat someone
>>>> as
>>>> a suspect because he exercises his right not to incriminate himself;
>>>> otherwise that right would effectively not exist.
>>>>
>>> It's also been well established that making a U-turn to avoid the
>>> checkpoin
>>> tis probable cause of trying to avoid law enforcement.
>>
>> Government courts agree with government cops. Film at 11.
>>
> And yet the government courts have actually found some aspects of law
> enforcement as unconstitutional. Checkpoints just don't happen to be one of
> those.

Small victories now and then do not change the general trend towards
greater and greater management and monitoring of our lives by
government.

>>> A high speed chase is
>>> also the result of the person driving the fleeing vehicle reaching that
>>> high of a speed. Note that there would be no chase if the person pulled over
>>> to the side of the road instead of fleeing from the officer(s).

>> There would be no chase if our rulers had not established checkpoints
>> as if this were the soviet union.

> Let's see, they ask a couple of questions and maybe might verify
> license/registration/proof of insurance. I'm not bothered by the questions,
> and license/registration/proof of insurance is a requirement to be on the
> road in many locations, including my state--so again, no problem.

Right, you accept that government can grant privilege and then you
accept greater and greater conditions to have that privilege. That's how
the incrementalism works. At each step the public shrugs and
rationalizes the next one as you do above. Next thing you know there is
a tracking transponder wired in your car that the government can use to
tax, trace, and turn off your vehicle.

>>> Ever been through a checkpoint? I've been stopped at one, it's really
>>> quit simple:

>> Yeah, they asked for and examined my papers and found them in order and
>> I was allowed on my way. It was very much like those movie depictions of
>> Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.

> They didn't ask for your citizenship, nor for a permit to pass from city to
> city, so you can't make Nazi or Soviet comparisons in that case.

They at times ask where I'm coming from and/or where I am going. In a
free country I wouldn't need to produce papers on demand, which include
my national ID card, that is the driver's license. Maybe you are not
familiar with the REALID act, but the DLs in all but the states which
resisted are now functional national ID cards.

>>> Question 1: Have you had any alcoholic beverages to drink tonight?
>>> Reply: "No."

>> Real answer: none of your buisness.

> I hope the officer asks you to turn off the vehicle and step out of the car,
> if you would really reply that way to the officer.

Your true nature exposed. If I should not want to speak to the cop or
answer his questions I should be punished. Maybe the answer could be
tortured out of me? What do I gain by having a conversation with a cop?
The cop is there to twist any answers he can into something by which he
can probe deeper and/or make an arrest. It is not in my interest to
answer.

>>> Question 2: Is there any alcohol in the car? (The officer may shine a
>>> flashlight through the vehicle to check for alcoholic beverages.)
>>> Reply: "No."

>> Real answer: none of your business.

> I hope the officer wanrs you about possible arrest for disorderly conduct,
> if you would continue to disrespect the officer.

It is none of his business and the excerise of my rights is not a
disrespect of the hired muscle of the government. I am not his slave,
not his to command, nor do I belong to his masters. Neither do you.

>>> Then I got waved on with a simple, "Have a good evening, drive safely".
>>> Since I wasn't driving under the influence, there were no problems except
>>> for a smallish traffic backup behind me, and me having to stop for a
>>> moment to answer two simple questions.

>> What else are you going to accept ? How about a viewscreen in your home?
>> A chip in your hand? Where do you draw the line? Or do you even draw
>> one, just slowly accepting incremental change?

> Yeah, I know my rights and I know what lines to draw if needede.

Where is your line? I am asking where is the line that you say, 'here,
no further'?

> Shining a flashlight into the vehicle isn't a search, but if I was asked to
> pull over and open all of the vehicle for search, I would draw the line and
> ask for the probable cause and the warrant authorizing search. I also draw
> the line at going into my residence. Again, if officers asked to enter and
> search, I'd ask for the probable cause and the warrant.

Courts have upheld all sorts of warrantless searches. Laws like the
patriot act can be invoked. Courts have ruled warrants acceptable
that came from the word of dubious informants that may or may not
have existed. Wrong addresses, bad vehicle descriptions, etc and so
forth have all been used to justify the actions of cops. All you need is
a court decision so why to do you draw the line there? They could very
well have good reason to search your vehicle without warrant or probable
cause, just a vague description from an unindentified informant that
sort of kinda matches you or your vehicle in one or more aspects.

> But, I don't consider license/registration/proof of insurance checkpoints as
> violating my rights, nor do I consider DUI checkpoints as violating my
> rights. At worst, they cause traffic backups, but one who is not in
> violation is waved through soon enough.

At worst? No. At worst you end up spending a night in jail and your car
ripped apart because of some clerical mishap. Actually it could be worse
than that, you can end up dead because a cop misunderstood something and
got scared. If we're going to talk worst case possibilities here, death
is on the table. The checkpoints exist to find something, anything to
make numbers to make the checkpoints appear valuable. Do you really want
your life ruined or ended because someone had to make their numbers to
get their promotion?

>>> Newer checkpoints also now have signs indicating something like "Have
>>> driver's license available for inspection". I've had my license in hand
>>> approaching the officer at the checkpoint, and I've been waved on through
>>> one two different occasions I've encountered such a checkpoint.

>> The ones I encounter are set up like a construction zone or people
>> working on a busted water main or something. The lights are set up such
>> that you don't know it's a check point until it's too late... unless
>> you've seen it before.

> The ones I see have cones closing off lanes if they want to narrow the
> checkpoint area to one or two lanes. The officers standing nearby will be
> stopping or waving vehicles through. If the checkpoint is at an
> intersection, the lights are usually set to blinking red.

yes, they narrow the road to one lane... but there is nothing to say
'checkpoint ahead'. Bright lights are set up that obscure what is going
on from approaching traffic.

>>> Only those driving under the influence, or those with out of state or no
>>> license at all, have something to worry about when approaching a
>>> checkpoint.

>> Yes, that's how police state actions are typically rationalized. The
>> reality is that every encounter we have with cops is dangerous. A cop
>> misinterpeting the slightest thing can result in one's death. Besides
>> that, you never know if there is warrant for somebody else you share a
>> name with or that something got mis-spelled or a whole host of clerical
>> errors that could result in a very bad time. Then again, if you have a
>> nice car some cop might just take a liking to it and use the law to take
>> it. After all, he'll have all the power in the situation.
>>
>> I'm only scratching the surface here. There's lots of good reason to
>> avoid checkpoints and everyone has something to fear from them.

> Then go ahead and avoid the checkpoint, but be prepared to pull over and
> have some explaining to do to the officer that pulls you over. Frankly, I'd
> rather avoid such a situation and just proceed to the checkpoint, being
> stopped or waved through as they decide to stop or wave through vehicles.
> I've never been sent to the secondary inspection point in the three
> different checkpoints I've passed through.

I've gone around the checkpoint I commonly encounter three or four times
now. They did nothing. I will continue to divert around it. By bicycling
the area I have found two alternate routes, one I can turn right to the
other I can turn left to. This way I can avoid it regardless of what
lane I am in. Before I knew this I only knew the one to the left.
Twice, I actually turned right, went into a parking lot, turned around
and then went straight through the intersection. Cops did nothing. I did
this once in my 1973 Ford which should have made it all that much more
obvious. I do believe the same lights which obscure the checkpoint ahead
may make it difficult to see what is going on at the last intersection
before the checkpoint.

>>>> America is supposed to be run for the convenience of innocent civilians.
>>>> Not of cops.

>>> The statistics that show drinking and driving goes up during the holidays
>>> more than justifies the checkpoints. If the checkpoints got no arrests
>>> and no impounds, they would cease to exist on their own.

>> And domestic violence justifies a camera in very home so the government
>> employees can watch us to keep us safe.

> Off topic. The cops are doing enforcement, not surveillance. Public streets,
> driving is a privilege and not a right. They are entitled to enforce those
> streets.

You believe it to be a privilege because they told you it was.
Government granted privilege means they could demand anything of you to
have it. If driving were a privilege, they could mandate that to drive,
you must have a viewscreen in your home to stop domestic violence. They
already mandate in some states that child support be current to drive.

The enforcement angle doesn't fly either. Checkpoints are not an
effective method of enforcement. If enforcement was their goal
checkpoints would not be the method to use. Checkpoints are for
arresting people who have warrants, arresting people for contraband
(another thing that shouldn't exist in a free country) and conditioning
the general population.

>> Statistics also show that those checkpoints don't do much of anything
>> with regard to drinking and driving.

> And yet they have reportable statistics for arrests and impounds every time
> there is a checkpoint--the results are never zero.

Yes, they might get one or two people who are over 0.08 BAC. They might
get a few people for having contraband in their vehicles. They might nab
a few people with warrants. The various non-DUI stuff is far greater
than the excuse (DUI) for having the checkpoint. But, the checkpoint
requires a great deal of manpower to operate. It's at a fixed location.
The same sort of manpower put to use on patrol would do far more to
detect dangerously impaired drivers than a checkpoint ever could.

There is a reason that these checkpoints are usually paid for with money
from the federal government or another outside source. It seems only
where the police feel they can generate a profit through property
siezure do they operate them on their own dime.